Wednesday, January 12, 2011

OBAMA ORIGINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY HAWAII FROM BALLOT!

EXCELLENT - New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nomination for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 was to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a hearing with Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

.by Pen JohannsonEditor, The Daily Pen

Honolulu, Hawaii - At the center of the war over Barack Obama’s illegitimacy as president are a series of deep seated, unanswered questions about the detailed involvement of several municipal employees and officials within the government of the State of Hawaii. From former governor, Linda Lingle’s convenient deniability to former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino’s intentionally misleading statements about Obama’s vital records. From the blatant, dismissive ignorance of Hawaii’s legislature about the difference between "U.S. Citizenship" and "Natural-born citizenship", to the claims by a former Honolulu senior elections office clerk that the State of Hawaii does not possess an original, 1961 Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Obama, the State of Hawaii has emerged as the primary co-conspirator in keeping Obama’s identity a well kept secret from the American people.

Now, however, a new investigation of Hawaii’s Election Commission and the laws used by the state’s Office of Elections to approve or deny candidates for inclusion on presidential ballots raises shocking revelations about the administrative power held by too few unaccountable people and their capacity to override the U.S. Constitution. The evidence reveals that municipal agents, working within the jurisdiction of state law, opened shadowy legal channels enabling Obama an opportunity to usurp presidential power and assault the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people.
.
THE "O"CON

Recall, over the past two years, we became familiar with the furor over the Democrat Party of Hawaii's refusal to certify Obama's constitutional eligibility. The DPH is the Democrat Party authority in charge of requesting, reviewing and verifying the legal qualifications of a candidates eligibility in compliance with Hawaiian election laws.
.
The DPH's refusal to certify Obama was due to a failure by Obama to make available the original documented evidence confirming his eligibility. This rightful, justified lack of certification was followed by a covert attempt by the Democratic National Committee to artificially declare Obama eligible in Hawaii by submitting two separate, sworn Official Certifications of Nomination (OCON) for Obama, each containing different legal language. Both versions of the OCON were sent to the Hawaiian Office of Elections while only one version was submitted to other states' Election authorities. As stated by Hawaii's Office of Elections website in 2008:
.
"The Official Certification of Nomination is a legally
required document submitted by each party's state and national authority to
every state elections committee authority prior to each presidential election. It affords
the Chief Elections Officer in each state with the documented legal assurance
that the candidates seeking inclusion on their state's ballot are indeed
certified as constitutionally eligible to serve the office they seek".

The violation committed with the DNC's falsified certification is that there was no evidence to support claims of Obama eligibility. If the state party authority refused to certify a candidate due to a lack of legal qualifications, the national party authority cannot then simply certify the same candidate without ignoring that same lack of documents. That's absurd! The OCON controversy is an example of what happens when dishonest, inferior people try to force themselves into positions of power they are not qualified to assume. Even those who seek to uphold the honorability of service within their own party will eventually refuse to endorse their candidacy.
.
Not only was the dual OCON a deceitful maneuver by Nancy Pelosi and DNC to force Obama's unverifiable candidacy onto Hawaii's presidential ballot, it arguably violated Constitutional election law requiring that each state maintains the authority to grant or deny candidacy based on their own standards. Most people would never know that this very intraparty conflict enabled the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii to invoke an obscure law and approve Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot...even though he was never determined to be constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.
.
Compounding this controversy, in August, 2008, just two months before the election, the Democrat Party of Hawaii’s (DPH) chairman, Brian Schatz, now serving as the Lt. Governor of Hawaii, had already refused to include legally required, explicit language in its sworn Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) that Barack Obama was qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. This document was allegedly submitted to the Hawaiian Election's office between August 27 and September 5, 2008, however, it was also not affixed with a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp by the Hawaiian Elections office. As a result, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer was forced to disqualify Obama from the presidential ballot in Hawaii until a lengthy administrative process reconciled the disparity. Then, based on the fact the conflict was not able to be resolved, the Hawaiian CEO was forced to exercise an obscure, rarely applied law in order to force Obama's illegitimate candidacy onto the 2008 Hawaiian ballot.
.
ANGLES AND TRICKS
.
Driving this suspicious conduct was the knowledge held by Obama's campaign drones that if any state Elections Officer, let alone one overseeing the legality of election procedure in the very state the candidate was raised in, was forced to disqualify Obama's candidacy on the grounds of him being found ineligible there, by his own party authority, the issue would have exploded into a firestorm of mainstream inquiry. This could not be allowed to happen so close to the election, no matter how valid the accusations. There would have been no way to recover from such an endictment against Obama. His 2008 campaign and, possibly, his political career, would not have survived the revelation of the devastating documentable evidence against him.
.
However, this was not the only bad consequence "Team Obama" needed to prevent in the wake of the Hawaiian OCON disaster. They also needed to conceal the facts about his illegitimacy, overall, as well as supress any public knowledge about Obama's legal requirement to meet specific deadlines or personally attend to proceedings in Hawaii attributed directly to countering claims of his ineligibility. Especially if Obama was required to meet with party authorities in Hawaii and the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to refute their findings between the OCON filing date of September 5, 2008 and November 4, 2008.
.
So, let's ask the most obvious question first. Did Obama make an unscheduled or sudden trip to Hawaii between September 5th and November 4th, 2008?
.
Before answering, let's remember, Obama was operating on a very tight campaign schedule between mid-August and Election day, 2008. A review of his schedule reveals more than 50 events in the final two months. He had several town hall meetings and debates which could not be cancelled or rescheduled because they involved John McCain too. The only way to free himself and cover up his motives was to exploit some personal issue which could serve as a "front story" for his presence in Hawaii.
.
Complicating the logistical, legal and political nightmare was the fact that Obama had already attended campaign rallies and fundraisers in Hawaii in mid-August. Therefore, justifying another visit to Hawaii amid the maelstrom of campaign rallies, debates, forums and town hall meetings scheduled in the other 49 states would require a personal reason that Obama's campaign could justify to the public while putting him in Hawaii to secretly attend to his legal matters. Given the weight of Obama's lack of legitimacy, if he appeared in Hawaii too close to his previous visit, it looks very suspicious and invites media inquiry.

However, if Obama made another unscheduled appearance in Hawaii too close to the OCON filing deadline of September 5, 2008, it would have brought too much attention as well. If he waited until too close to the election, he would miss the deadline of October 24, 2008 Hawaii imposes for inclusion on the ballot. Therefore, Obama needed to find a way to be in Hawaii at a time that would:
.
1. occur as far from the OCON deadline as possible, but no later than October 24th.
2. allow him to cancel campaign events, but not miss prescheduled debates with McCain.
3. meet legal deadlines for ballot approval, but not violate deadlines for his requested hearing to refute the findings of ineligibility by the DPH.
4. give the media a "decoy" story to serve as his excuse for being in Hawaii, but not let the public discover the real reason he was in Hawaii was because he was attending eligility hearing with Chief Elections Officer and the DPH.
.
Obama was provided with such circumstances on October 22nd-24th, 2008.

Former Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) Chairman, Brian Schatz, now serves as the state's Lt. Governor

An investigation of Hawaii Revised Statutes, along with documented evidence, reveals that the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, being bound by law from partisan participation, still had the legal authority to circumvent the vetting process for Obama and simply approve his placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot without ever verifying that he was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President. Moreover, the evidence presented herein further confirms that the legal tactics employed by the Obama machine actually allowed him to fill Hawaiian legal requirements, behind the lies of the media, without actually having to ever present authentic documentation.

Shockingly, adminstrative procedures employed by the Elections Office in the State of Hawaii actually helped Obama avoid public scrutiny by simultaneously allowing him the opportunity to personally attend a hearing about his eligibility while visiting his sick grandmother in late October, 2008. The chronology of available deadlines and correspondences reveal that Obama would have been able to hide this eligibility hearing under the headline of visiting his dying grandmother. HRS 11-113, in coordination with Chapter 91 administrative rules, and differences in time zones (that's right, Hawaii's geographic location may have helped Obama meet legal deadlines), gave Obama the linkage needed to preserve both legal and political appearances by affording him almost 45 days between the Certification deadline and his trip to visit his dying grandmother.

SETTING THE STAGE

The details of the following account seem somewhat daunting, and even overly exhaustive. However, it is more important to remember that Obama's agents engaged the prerequisites of his illegitimacy with exhaustive investigation and extreme premeditation long before they pushed him onto his present stage. They looked at all the angles. They weighed all the concequences. They engaged all the legal provisions, and how to "bend", but not break, them. The evidence reveals they may have even pushed too hard on the limits of lawful conduct.

If those seeking the truth about Obama's identity are not equal to that same diligence, then they should question their understanding of the importance of constitutional sovereignty. Remember, among the primary objectives of radical, liberal globalists, in concealing Obama's illegitimacy, were to endow political power to a like-minded, radical agent who would be willing to "push" extreme doctrine enabling the governmental confiscation of advanced American invidualism. Or, should we simply consider the massive five TRILLION dollars of added indebtedness upon our children and grandchildren the cost of being America? Obama was tactically positioned not to make American a better nation but to confiscate the value of America's superior heritage and give it to those he thinks are more deserving of it. There was a day when people sought to prosper from their work. Now, the definition of a new "American Dream" is being hijacked by liberals lusting to call themselves prosperous by the blood and sacrifice of others.

Therefore, our momentary visit into the realm of plausibility serves well the value of our new found lessons and reinforces the importance for the American people to seize responsibility and proactively protect the sovereignty of their blood-ransomed, Constitutional freedom. Sometimes, in order to accomplish this, we must vigorously deny access to those with plural, or ambiguous, allegiances. Casting out the idea peddlers is an essential first step in physically removing foul influences which undermine the intended goodness of our founders.

HAWAIIAN ELECTIONS AUTHORITY

Many people falsely believe that the national party committee for each party has certification jurisdiction over state party officials. This is not true. The DNC and RNC are not the primary constitutional authority in vetting candidates. The Constitution gives authority of determining candidate eligibility and to establish relationships enabling candidate placement on each state ballot to each respective state's Elections authority. This evolved out of the the founder's understanding that placing the enforcement of voting security in the hands of local authorities enabled fair access to the residents of the state they apportion and confirm voting registrations. National party authorities do not have the jurisdiction, resources or logistic capacity to ensure voter apportionment between states.

Just because the DNC determines that a candidate is eligible in, for example, New York, does mean they can force the state of Hawaii to also find that same candidate eligible. The founders understood that by endowing this to a national authority made the people of states who oppose a particular party vulnerable to under-representation and party intimidation.

Under the Electoral College system, according to election laws in every state, Electors from each state are only qualified by the Constitution to cast votes for President and Vice President. They do not participate in certifying the eligibility of the candidates prior to the election. Inexplicably, the certification of each candidate’s eligibility falls under the autonomous authority of each candidate’s state and national affiliated political party authority, while the approval of the candidate’s placement on each state’s ballot then becomes the responsibility of the Chief Elections Officer of each state. The state’s electors must rely on the relationship between these authoritative bodies to review qualifications, certify the legal eligibility of each candidate and approve ballot placement of each candidate nominated by each qualified party.

In August, 2008, the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer (CEO) was Kevin B. Cronin. He was appointed by the eight-member Hawaiian Elections Commission on December 10, 2007 and took over the position from Interim CEO, Rex M. Quidilla. By statute, Cronin’s term began on February 1, 2008 and is set to end on February 1, 2012. Cronin is a 30 year veteran of government service and is licensed to practice law in Hawaii and Wisconsin. The fully staffed Hawaiian Elections Commission is made up of the following individuals.

It is Cronin's constitutional authority to oversee elections in the state of Hawaii under the advisement of the Election Commission. It is his responsibility to maximize registration, equalize registration among districts; and maintain data related to registration, elections, districting and apportionment; educate the public on voting and elections; set up procedures and rules governing elections per HRS 11, AR 91 and Arts. II & IV of the U.S. Constitution. Cronin does not have the authority to certify the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate, however, his most powerful authority is his ability, according to HRS 11-113, to mediate conflict over eligibility and, as a result of mediation, officially approve candidates for placement on the state’s ballot even when the state party's vetting authority refuses to certify the legal qualifications of that candidate.

As absurd as this seems...it actually happened in Hawaii in 2008.

THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH), led then by Chairman, Brian Schatz and acting Secretary, Lynn Matusow, signed and had attested by notarization, an Official Certification of Nomination (OCON) for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Some time between August 27, 2008 and 4:30 p.m Hawaiian Time (9:30 p.m. Eastern Time) September 5, 2008, the DPH filed the document with Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided for public review does not contain a Hawaiian Elections Office "RECEIVED DATE" stamp, which is a suspicious omission because the date of reception by the Elections Office initiates the succession of correspondence and deadlines for review, response and possible hearings available to those opposing the findings of the CEO.

The OCON sent to Cronin by the DPH contained the following words in the body of its content:
"THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (Obama and Biden) are legally qualified to serve under the provision of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held on February 19th, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado."

The only proclamation this document makes is that Democrat Party of Hawaii asked a group of Democrats who they preferred as their nomination for President. However, unfortunately for Obama and the Democratic voters of Hawaii, Hawaiian Revised Statute 11-113 (c)(1)(B) specifically requires that this statement must explicitly state that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Hawaiian Elections Commission and the Chief Elections Officer to be able to approve the candidate for ballot placement.

Specifically, the wording of each party’s Hawaiian OCON must adhere to the requirements of HRS §11-113 (c)(1); Presidential Ballots, which states:

(c) All candidates for president and vice president of
the United States shall be qualified for inclusion on the general election ballot under the following procedures:...

...(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:

(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;

(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;

(C) A statement that the candidates are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national party, giving the time, place, and manner of the selection.

The Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCON for Barack Obama clearly did not meet the requirement of HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), which clearly states that the (DPH) party official (Brian Schatz) shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer (Kevin Cronin) which explicitly includes “…a statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution…” and is to be filed not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day (September 5, 2008) prior to the general election (November 4, 2008).

Let's mete out the scenerio giving the benefit of doubt the DPH, first. Perhaps this was simply an omissive error. Maybe the DPH "forgot" to include legally required language in its OCON for Obama on August 27, 2008 and didn't realize the error for another nine days until after the September 5th filing deadline had passed.

Or, despite the fact that the DPH OCON states that Obama was chosen by the DPH Preference Poll and Caucus back in FEBRUARY of 2008, nearly six months earlier, we are to believe there just wasn't enough time to include the statement that Obama was legally qualified by the constitution for approval for ballot placement by the Chief Elections Officer, and therefore the DPH simply ignored the requirement hoping to sneak it by the Election Commission.

However, comparing documented evidence of OCONs from previous elections reveals that the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s OCONs for both Al Gore/Joe Lieberman in 2000 and John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004 both had the following identical language:
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held in...”

The Democratic Party of Hawaii included the explicit statement required by HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B) that the 2000 and 2004 candidates were legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution, but the DPH did not do the same for Obama. Also, in another comparison, the Hawaiian Republican Party’s 2008 OCON, signed by RPH Chairman, Willes K. Lee, for John McCain and Sarah Palin, states:

“We do hereby certify that at a National Convention of Delegates representing the Republican Party of the United States, duly held and convened in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minnesota, on September 4, 2008, the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States, and the following person meeting the Constitutional requirements for the Office of Vice President of the United States were nominated for such offices to be filled at the ensuing general election, November 4, 2008…”

The Republican Party of Hawaii’s Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin clearly includes the words “…meeting the Constitutional requirements…” and is dated September 4, 2008, and is notarized by Sheila Rae Motzko, notary of Minnesota. Therefore, the RPH obviously had no reservations in certifying the eligibility of McCain and Palin.

Given the indisputable facts that the DPH had included the language in previous OCONs, indicating officials were fully aware of the legal requirement, and that the selection of Obama took place more than six months prior to the submittal of the OCON, indicating they had ample time to review any evidence of Obama's eligibility, it becomes impossible that the DPH either forgot about the need for the specific language or that the DPH simply ignored it. Therefore, the DPH intentionally omitted the language stating that Obama is legally qualified under the provisions of the U.S. constitution because he is not.

THE "MESS"

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed and had attested by notarization, its national Official Certification of Nominations with all fifty states on August 28th, 2008. We conclude this based on the "RECEIVED DATE" stamp provided on multiple states' DNC OCONs and the notarization date of August 28. This sworn application was filed sometime between August 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008 with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer, Kevin Cronin. The copy provided by the Hawaiian Election office for public review, however, does not contain a RECEIVED DATE stamp like other states' OCONs do.

However, a review of the Democratic National Committee’s OCONs for Obama reveals a shocking irregularity in the composition of its Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii. On December 19, 2008, Hawaii’s Chief Elections officer, Kevin Cronin, in response to a written request by a Colorado resident for a copy of the Official Certification of Nominations, sent a letter and a copy of the DPH’s OCON and the DNC’s OCON. However, analysis of the DNC OCON sent to Hawaii in comparison with the DNC’s OCON sent to other states, reveals that they did not match. In fact, Hawaii’s version of the DNC’s OCON contained specific wording not included in the versions sent to ALL the other states, which directly contradicts the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON. All the states' Election Commissions, except for Hawaii's, were sent one Official Certification of Nomination with the following statement:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively”

The typo “though” is not a mistake. It actually exists in the official document. Notice, in this version of the DNC’s OCON, there is no mention of Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. However, in the version sent separately to Hawaii’s Election Commission, it states the following: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”

The content of this second OCON from the DNC raises some serious questions about the motives of its author. First, the fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended suddenly. Notice the key language is tacked on the final sentence in this OCON rather than included in the mid-body of the paragraph. The inclusion of the specific language previously omitted by the DPH's OCON indicates nothing less than a conspiracy on the part of the DNC and the DPH to force a confirmation of Barack Obama’s eligibility by the state of Hawaii, without actually verifying it. This is apparent because if either party authority had actually verified it, the other would have also included the legally required language, especially since both OCONs were notarized with NINE days remaining in the deadline to submit them to Cronin.

Unless of course, the document was actually submitted to the Hawaiian Elections Office too late for revisions, which is likely the case. Therefore, the DNC was forced to amend its Hawaiian OCON specifically for Obama as a means of creating a direct contradiction with the DPH’s legitimate omission of legal language which, if included, would certify Obama’s constitutional eligibility in accordance with Hawaiian law.

The obvious crime in this intentional dissemination of misinformation is that if the DPH was unable to verify Obama’s eligibility, the DNC would have also not been able to verify it. Why would the DNC not share its verification documentation of Obama's candidacy with the Democrat Party of Hawaii's official? If the DNC was actually able to verify Obama's eligibility, the DPH would have also acquired the same documentation to verify it. If the eligibility of Obama candidacy was provable and verifiable, both party authorities would have included the same appropriate language in accordance with Hawaiian law. Hawaiian law also allowed for seven more days from the dates appearing on both OCONs to be filed if more time was needed for the DPH and the DNC to corroborate the verification of Obama's eligibility.

Also, if the original version of the DNC's OCON had been authored with language confirming Obama's constitutional eligbility, the DNC had no rational motive for submitting two different versions. The inclusion of such language only reinforces perception of Obama's eligibility in every state. Therefore, the submittal of different documents indicates an act of deception on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC in an effort to contradict the Democrat Party of Hawaii's OCON.

THE "FIX"

This contradiction was intentional because the very presence of this conflict activates a series of lawful empowerments to the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to make autonomous decisions about ballot content. However, Adminstrative procedure law in Hawaii dictates that certain correspondence and deadlines must be met first:

HRS 11-113 (1)(d) provides that “…Each applicant and the candidates named, shall be notified in writing of the applicant's or candidate's eligibility or disqualification for placement on the ballot not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth business day after filing. The chief election officer may extend the notification period up to an additional five business days, if the applicants and candidates are provided with notice of the extension and the reasons therefore.”

The DPH filed the OCON as late as September 5, 2008. We can't confirm this date because the Hawaiian Elections Office did not stamp and "RECEIVED DATE" on the document, like the other 49 states did on theirs. Therefore, this means that, by adding the optional five business day extension to the mandated 10 day notification deadline, Cronin mailed the notification to Obama between September 26, 2008 and September 29th, 2008, accounting for weekends, difference in time zones and end of "business day" Fridays.

HRS 11-113 (1)(e) then provides that “…(e) If the applicant, or any other party, individual, or group with a candidate on the presidential ballot, objects to the finding of eligibility or disqualification the person may, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the fifth day after the finding, file a request in writing with the chief election officer for a hearing on the question.”

Therefore, if Cronin notified Obama that he was not qualified to be placed on the ballot in Hawaii, this means that Obama had until approximately October 6th or 7th, 2008 to respond in writing and request a hearing.

HRS 11-113(1)(e) then provides that “…A hearing shall be called not later than 4:30 p.m. on the tenth day after the receipt of the request and shall be conducted in accord with chapter 91.”

Cronin would have received Obama's request sometime around October 9th or 10th, 2008. However, like the OCON, Cronin is not obligated to record receipt of the document on the same day it arrives. Therefore, based on HRS 11-113(e), the latest Cronin was legally able to schedule a hearing for Obama was sometime between Monday, October 20th and Friday, October 24th, 2008.

Moreover, Hawaii Revised Statute, Administrative Rules, Chapter 91-9 (d), Contested Cases; notice, hearing; records states: “Any procedure in a contested case may be modified or waived by stipulation of the parties and informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default.”

Essentially, this HAR allows Obama to request a reasonable modification of procedure in order to accommodate a reasonable schedule and effort needed to attend a contesting hearing. Therefore, Obama could have have sought extra time after the hearing began in order to accommodate a pressing personal matter…like a sick grandmother.

Where was Obama between October 20th - 24th, 2008?

On Monday, October 20, 2008, Reuters reported:

“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will leave the campaign trail to go to Hawaii this week to visit the ailing grandmother who helped raise him, an aide said on Monday.

Recently his grandmother has become ill and in the last few weeks her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious," said Obama aide Robert Gibbs.

Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who will be 86 on Sunday, helped raise him along with his mother, Ann Dunham, and his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Gibbs would not discuss the nature of her illness.

The candidate is canceling events in Madison, Wisconsin, and Des Moines, Iowa, that had been scheduled for Thursday. He instead will go to an event in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Thursday, then fly to Hawaii to see his grandmother. He will return to the campaign trail on Saturday, Gibbs said."

Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113(b) then gave Cronin the legal right to choose to include Barack Obama, an uncertified, unverified and, therefore, ineligible presidential candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot. HRS 11-113(b) states:

b) A "national party" as used in this section shall mean a party established and admitted to the ballot in at least one state other than Hawaii or one which is determined by the chief election officer to be making a bona fide effort to become a national party. If there is no national party or the national and state parties or factions in either the national or state party do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

Within the legal prose of this corrupt Hawaiian law lies the permission for the Chief Elections Officer (Kevin Cronin) of Hawaii to include the name of an ineligible candidate (Barack Obama) on the Hawaiian presidential ballot when the state party authority (DPH, chair Brian Schatz) and the national party authority (DNC, chair Nancy Pelosi) do not agree on the eligibility of the candidate. As we know, Obama appeared on the Hawaiian presidential ballot indicating that Cronin acted alone in approving Obama's candidacy for ballot placement.
SUMMARY

A comparison of the DNC's OCON sent to Hawaii with the OCONs sent to every other state reveals a conspiracy to conceal Obama's ineligibility. Notice the statement added to the Hawaiian document in order to make it compliant with HRS 11-113(c)(1)(B), after it was discovered the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF HAWAII refused to include the legally required language enabling Hawaii's Chief Elections Officer to approve of Obama's inclusion on the Hawaiian Presidential Ballot.

Any conflict among party authorities over candidate eligibility allows the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer the autonomous choice whether or not to include the candidate on the ballot anyway, per HRS 11-113(b), which Cronin did, regardless if that candidate is proven eligible or not. Cronin is not obligated to verify eligibility per HRS 11-113.

This indicates a crime. If the original OCON had contained the amended statement prior to being signed, it would have been left in the body of the statement for ALL the OCONs received by all the states. There is no rational motive for the DNC to omit this statement post-signing because it only reinforces allegations by Obama and the DNC that he is eligible in every state. Which he is not, at least we know, in Hawaii. The fact that it only appears in Hawaii's OCON indicates a cover-up.

The lack of a "RECEIVED DATE" stamp on the DNC's Hawaiian OCON, which is present on other state's version, also prevents an accurate determination of the latest possible date on which Cronin was able to schedule a CONTEST HEARING with Obama after finding Obama uncertified by the DPH. Obama would not have wanted to give the appearance of dealing with an ineligibility issue so close to the election, but he also would not want to allow anyone to know their was a legal problem with his inclusion on the ballot so near the date when Hawaii received the Certifications of Nomination there. Cronin was permitted to record his receipt of the OCON as late as Sept. 5, 2008, 60 days prior to the election, which would have allowed the hearing to begin sometime between October 10, 2008 and October 24, 2008, after exhausting the legally permitted time and personal allowances in the process for scheduling according to HRS 11-113(d) and (e).

Obama cancelled several campaign appointments, just weeks before the election, and suddenly traveled to Hawaii on October 21, 2008 without his family.

This documented evidence, in coordination with actions by the Democrat party's authorities and the actions of the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in coordination with the provisions of Hawaiian election law and Obama's behavior in coordination with the events of the campaign, his personal life, and his lack of constitutional eligibility to be president all leave little doubt that the election of Obama occurred extralegally and outside the limits of constitutional legitimacy.

By undermining the provisions of the constitution, Barack Obama has injured the American people by illegally circumventing their right to the protections against domestic threats and ineligible usurpation of their sovereign liberties, which include the right of trust and confidence in those presenting themselves as legitimate candidates for government office.

The fact that very specific, and rational questions remain unanswered about Obama's past, including the actions by officials working within the government agencies of the State of Hawaii, reveals nothing less than a web of legally knitted deception in order to conceal the obviousness of Barack Obama complete lack of Constitutional standing to be President of the United States. As such, Obama's entire Presidency has been built on an epic lie of such grand proportions no remedy remains except that which can only come from the common-men and descendants of our vintage American founders.

REVIEWING THE FACTS

1. Electors from each state rely on each party’s state authority in that state to certify the nomination of their candidates and verify their legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Hawaiian election law specifically requires each state’s party authority to file a sworn application (Official Certification of Nomination) with Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer certifying the eligibility of each candidate to serve as President and Vice President of the United States.

3. Hawaii Revised Statute 11-113 (c) specifically requires that this sworn application from each state party authority contains explicit language stating that all candidates are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution in order for the Chief Elections Officer to approve the candidate for placement on the state’s presidential ballot.

4. On August 27th, 2008, by notary attestment, authorities of the Democrat Party of Hawaii (DPH) signed a sworn Official Certification of Nomination and was required to submit the document to Hawaii's Chief Election Officer, Kevin Cronin before 4:30 p.m. on September 5, 2008.

5. The DPH, chaired by Brian Schatz, refused to include legally required language, per HRS 11-113 (c)(1)(B), within the state party’s Official Certification of Nomination stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

6. The Democrat Party of Hawaii included this legally required language for other Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in past elections dating to, at least, 2000 and 2004. Therefore, the omission of this language within the DPH’s 2008 OCON of Obama’s candidacy is not a mistake or an oversight. It was done intentionally and with full understanding of Brian Schatz that the Hawaiian CEO, Kevin Cronin, would not be legally permitted to approve Barack Obama as a candidate on the Hawaiian presidential ballot, unless the Democratic National Committee (the national party authority) included this language in its OCON.

7. The Republican Party of Hawaii included the legally required language in its sworn 2008 Official Certification of Nomination for John McCain and Sarah Palin, per HRS 11-113, without reservation or exceptions.

8. The Democrat Party of Hawaii refused to acknowledge that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as president under the provisions of U.S. Constitution and, therefore, the DPH refused to provide legal certification allowing the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer to approve the placement of Barack Obama on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

9. Since the DPH did not provide legal certification of Barack Obama's constitutional candidacy, Kevin Cronin, was required to send a written notice to Barack Obama informing him that the DPH refused to provide legal certification of his candidacy for approval of his inclusion on the State of Hawaii’s 2008 presidential ballot. Cronin was legally required to send this notification within 10 business days from the time Cronin received the OCON from the DPH. Cronin also had the option, under HRS 11-113, to extend the notification deadline five more business days for a total of 15 days from the day the DPH filed the OCON.

10. The DPH's OCON is dated August 27th, 2008. However, HRS 11-113 provides that OCONs may be filed by 4:30 p.m. on no less than the 60th day prior to the day of the election. In this case, based on the alleged date appearing the DPH's OCON, the DPH still had eight more days to file the OCON and perhaps request verification documentation from Obama. Therefore, Obama received his notification of the Hawaiian CEO's findings no later than September 20, 2008.

11. However, documents provided by the Hawaiian Election Commission show that the Democratic National Committee, chaired by Nancy Pelosi, signed its 2008 Official Certification of Nomination with a date of August 28, 2008. However, documented evidence shows that the DNC also authored a separate version of its OCON at a later time. One version was sent only to Hawaii containing specific wording which directly contradicted that state party’s Constitutional authority to declare that Barack Obama was not constitutionally eligible to serve as President and was, therefore, not approved for inclusion on the Hawaiian presidential ballot.

12. Article IV-Section 4, Article IV-Section 1 and Article II-Section 1 of the Constitution grants sovereignty for certifying a candidate’s nomination and approving a candidate’s inclusion on each state’s presidential ballot to each state. The Democratic National Committee does not have the legal authority to supersede the sovereignty of Hawaii’s appointed authority to conduct election, approve ballot content and certify the nomination of candidates.

13. By intentionally contradicting the findings of Hawaii’s party authority for the purpose of forcing the state of Hawaii to include Obama’s candidacy on its ballot, the Democratic National Committee, headed by Nancy Pelosi, committed election fraud and violated the Constitutional right of the people of the state of Hawaii to an election process in which supreme power is held by the citizens and their entitlement to vote for Constitutionally eligible candidates.

14. The Official Certification of Nomination sent to Hawaii’s Chief Elections Officer by the DNC was not sent to any other state’s CEO.

15. Based on the authority given them by the Constitution, some states’ election laws do not require an explicit statement indicating a candidate’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the Constitution, like Hawaii, but rather a general statement citing documentation that the candidate is qualified under federal law to serve as President and Vice President.

16. The DNC sent a different OCON to every other state omitting the reference to Constitutional eligibility.

17. Cronin sent written notification to Obama stating that Obama was found legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution based on the DNC’s OCON.

18. The Democratic Party of Hawaii and the Democratic National Committee do not agree with one another about the Constitutional qualifications of Barack Obama.

19. Cronin’s notifications have never been revealed to the public.

20. If the notification from Cronin to Obama stated that Obama was found not qualified to be on the Hawaiian ballot, Obama had five business days after the finding to send a written request for a hearing to contest the finding and reconcile his lack of eligibility with the DPH.

21. Upon receiving a request for a hearing from Obama, Cronin was obligated to schedule the hearing within 10 business days of receiving the request.

23. AR 91 allows a petitioner for a hearing to request reasonable scheduling accommodations in order to attend the hearing based on travel, personal matters and/or financial issues.

24. The hearing would have been conducted around mid to late October, 2008.

25. Barack Obama’s grandmother was reported to have become gravely ill in early to mid October, 2008.

26. Barack Obama was in Hawaii in mid October, 2008. The American public was told that his only business there was to visit with his ill grandmother.

27. Obama went to Hawaii, suddenly, without his wife and children, even though Dunham's condition was reported to have been expectedly declining for several weeks, during which, at any time, Obama could have otherwise scheduled a planned visit. The exclusion of Dunham's great-grandchildren and Michelle Obama during this visit is odd. Madelyn Dunham did not pass away for two more weeks after Obama's visit having never been visited by Obama's family in her final months.

27. HRS 11-113 (b) states: If there is no national party or the national and state parties…do not agree on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the chief election officer may determine which candidates' names shall be placed on the ballot or may leave the candidates' names off the ballot completely.

28. Barack Obama was included on the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson, Brian Schatz and the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party’s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?

QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama’s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election, in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?

QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing, of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?

QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin and what date did he submit this request?

QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?

QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?

QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?

QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?

QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama’s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?

QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama’s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).

QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

COURTESY THE DAILY PEN

=======================================

Alan Note: And why did he extend his recent Hawaii vacation to include a WORK day. Hard for a complicit government official to show up at his or the relevant government office to retrieve the old document on a weekend without scrutiny, take it to Obama and then replace it with one Obama provides - or something along those lines.

About Me

For many years involved with intelligence and security matters in Iran with significant access at top levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979. Currently an Iran SME (subject matter expert), analyst/commentator, and multi-linguist.